And I have already pointed out that when I talk about Right, I mean European Right first and foremost, because that is what I am familiar with. When I talk about American Left or Right, I usually tend to explicitly note that, unless context makes it obvious.
As for the American Right, yes, it is true that they are not founded in the French Revolution. But even in the United States, you have the right wing (Paleoconservatives), moderate left (Neoconservatives) and extreme left (Progressives). And from what I have seen from Trump et al., neoconservatives loathe paleoconservatives. So compared to Europe, same pig, different dress.
And this, this type of thing right here, is why us long term Conservatives are growing really tired of the recent "Dirtbag Right" types coming into the movement. I also saw this on a Lotus Eater Podcast recently. Conflating Fusionist Conservatives and Neoconservatives together, specifically to demonize the Fusionists. Also Paleoconservatives love this too, since they've long been frustrated that Fusionists and not themselves, were seen as the intellectual foundation of the American Conservative movement and so love to demonize Fusionists, even though Fusionists and Paleocons are in agreement on 90% of the issues.
Neoconservatives are a VERY SPECIFIC thing. If you think "Neoconservatives" were the more establishment Conservative movement founded by William Buckley and put forward by the National Review, you're wrong. There's no two ways to put it. National Review, Buckley, and those in that intellectual tradition, which includes Reagan, are Fusionist Conservatives. The main differences between Fusionism and Paleoconservatism is that Fusionism is more Internationally Interventionalist than Paleoconservatism and less Trade Protectionist. Bearing in mind that Fusionism developed
during the Cold War and in response to the defeatism of the late 60s and early 70s that had set in, the Interventionism was specifically and explicitly anti-Communist and founded in a desire to use the strength and standing of the US as a shield against smaller countries from the dangers and persecution of Communism with ideals founded on defending fellow Christians from persecution by the Communists and others. Fusionist Interventionism was very founded in seeing the US as very much in a "White Knight" roll meant to
counter and
contain the USSR. It was not interested in expanding American hegemony or even setting up an American Empire.
Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is an ideology that leeched on the success of Fusionism in the Reagan administration. It has never been the foundational ideology of the bulk of the Right, only a small handful of intellectual elites. Where Fusionism was only interested in Intervention to Defend, Neoconservatism was interested in Intervention to Secure. This may sound like a minor difference, but it is a major one. Fusionism only pushed for intervention when Communism was clearly already on the offence, whereas Neocons would use intervention just to implement regime change to get a more favorable government to the US, even if the prior one was not communist or repressive. Also note, for all their bleating about how they're non-interventionalist, during the Cold War Paleocons were just, if not MORE, virulently opposed to Communism than either Fusionists or Neocons, with Paleocons being the ones most likely to see Communists under every rock and tree in the US as well as abroad, and arguably the Paleocons were the most Hawkish when it came to Communists as well. Basically, the idea that Paleocons have always just wanted America to stay nice and cooped up inside our borders and not be out in the world is them whitewashing their own history to instead seem more palatable to modern sensibilities.
Further, it was Neoconservatism that pushed "Free" trade and open borders, as it was inherently a corporatist/elitist ideology in many respects, which is in opposition to Fusionism which pushed for small government, disentanglements between government and corporations, etc. When people talk about the "uniparty" or the elitists in DC seem to be all on the same page, that is mostly due to the Neoconservative influence in the Republican party, which reached its zenith under the W Bush Administration.
Note that Reagan's "morning in America" his beefing up of the military, and other means that collapsed the Soviet Union were pushed by ALL forms of Conservatives, Fusionist, Paleocons, and Neocons. However, Neocons managed to claim all the credit, while Fusionists and Paleocons were pushed out of leadership roles in the Republican party in large part due to their failure in the 90s to counter moves by Bill Clinton and the ousting of major leaders like Newt Gingrich for his own personal failures.
When it comes to the US Supreme Court and the victory that was seen there that was mainly organized by the Fusionists. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party loves taking credit for that, but frankly, they never could have done it without the Fusionists, as it was the Fusionists who built and maintained the alliance with right-libertariansism and Social Conservatism. In point of fact, Fusionism at its very core is the "Fusion" of "Social Conservatism", "Right-Libertarianism", and anti-communism. Which is why it is so much ideologically stronger than Paleoconservatism, as many Paleocons, especially in recent years, have taken to rejecting Classical Burkian Liberalism where Fusionist embraced it.
And yes, Neoconservatives hate Paleocons, but they ALSO hate Fusionists and have been the main force preventing more Fusionist reforms being passed. This is because, despite the name, they're not any form of Conservatism, but rather they are Corporatist Internationalists. This is why so many Neocons have so easily switched to supporting Democrats, their core philosophy has never been based on Lockian principles and Burkian Conservatism, like Paleocons and Fusionists are, but rather on a worship of "Capitalism" (though they hate actual free markets, preferring to use the government to favor their companies and punish others) and the idea of the business elite being those whom are supposed to rule.